Stirring the Hornets’ Nest

A Heretic?
It seems I have stirred the proverbial hornets’ nest recently with several posts related to regeneration (‘“Born Again” in the SBC’; ‘Whitefield and the New Birth’; ‘You Must Be Born Again’; and Theology on Thursday [C. H. Spurgeon, ‘Faith and Regeneration’]). Peter Lumpkins, for example, stated, “James Galyon continues to cook up some good old-fashioned Founders stew concerning the non-negotiable dogma Founders will never drop—one must be born again in order to believe in Jesus Christ.” Mr. Lumpkins and I shared comments back and forth discussing the issue, amiably so (for which I am glad).  I even edited one of my posts (“You Must Be Born Again”) when Peter believed I had slighted him and non-Reformed Southern Baptists as heretics.  It certainly was not my intention to even imply such a thing.  As a show of Christian courtesy, and to insure I wasn’t misrepresenting anyone’s personal views, I altered the material so that any perception of implication was removed.  In an effort to also refrain from offending those who hold to what has often been termed “decisional regeneration,” the same article was edited so the phrase “conditional regeneration” was employed instead.  Soon thereafter the Calvinist Flyswatter told of my “aberration” in “misconstruing Dr. Dagg’s views as well as those of C. H. Spurgeon.” Bob Ross added, “Since the Flounders and men such as James Galyon flounderously continue to try to exploit both Dr. Dagg and Dr. Carroll to promote essential ‘Hardshell’ doctrine, we will continue to expose this misrepresentation as well as their Hybrid Calvinism heresy on what they call ‘regeneration.’” None of my recent posts regarding regeneration even mentioned B. H. Carroll.  The most recent edition of Theology on Thursday was merely a posting of Spurgeon’s sermon in full.  There was no added commentary or editing (such as added emphasis) to demonstrate “regeneration precedes faith.”  Of course, Ross’ rebuttal of my post selectively quoted Dagg and failed to interact with the Dagg material which I presented.  He also completely ignored the quotes I supplied from John Broadus, James P. Boyce, and ‘The Abstract of Principles’.

The thing I wonder is this – where in any of these posts have I declared as “non-negotiable dogma” that “one must be born again in order to believe in Jesus Christ”?  I certainly defended the “regeneration precedes faith” position, neither as non-negotiable dogma nor as my own theological hobby horse, but as one consistent within the parameters of Southern Baptist history and belief.  I did so in order as a matter of honoring my Calvinistic brothers and sisters who strongly hold that position because of a desire to see them treated as orthodox Christians within the boundaries of the SBC.  That defense has yet to be demonstrated as deficient.

In regard to my views regarding regeneration, Mr. Lumpkins simply assumed I was writing in an attempt to defend the regeneration precedes faith position at all costs.  He noted my “attempt to employ Scripture to prove his position himself.  However, as many Calvinists like to do at times, the exposition required is assumed, not argued.  For example, like other Calvinists of Galyon’s brand, Lydia’s ‘open heart’ is offered as a proof text for her being born again prior to saving faith being employed (Acts 16:14). The fact is, however, the text says absolutely nothing about regeneration.  Nothing.  It says God opened her heart.  What non-Calvinist argues God does not open a person’s heart to hear the Word of God?” For one thing, the portion of the post to which Mr. Lumpkins refers was not an attempted exposition of the declared passages.  Rather, I was stating what I believed about the process of the new birth and placing Scripture references in italics to simply indicate the biblical reasons for why I believe such things about that process.  Had I attempted an exposition, I would have certainly pointed to 1 John 5:1 for such a defense.  The Apostle John declares, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.”  The verb “has been born” (γεγέννηται) is the perfect tense of γεννάω.  The perfect tense denotes an action preceding the human action of believing (πιστεύων).  However, the thrust of the post was not to prove such a point, but to show there is a great deal of mystery involved with the process of the new birth and that we should stand amazed at God’s great grace in our lives in bringing it to pass.  I certainly heard, on more than one occasion from SBC seminary professors, that “Lydia opened her heart to God” because “Paul was persuasive.”  So, there are at least some Southern Baptist non-Calvinists who believe it is the work of individuals to open their own hearts to God.  This echoes Charles G. Finney’s exhortation that sinners are bound to change their own hearts.

I’m not certain whether Mr. Ross actually read the post(s) or not, mainly because his rebuttal emphasizes at one point (in red bold print) that “God employs his truth in the regeneration of the soul.”  Had he bothered to read my work it would have been evident I argue strongly for just that fact.  Ross later contends, “It is clear that Dr. Dagg taught that spiritual faith, which is brought about by the Word applied by the Holy Spirit…. It is also clear that Dagg taught that the Word is the ‘instrument’ the Spirit uses in regeneration.” (emphasis original)  Ross castigates men such as me for refusing to believe the new birth is brought about by the Holy Spirit applying His Word.  Such a castigation is baseless, obviously, in the face of the evidence.  Ross has yet to criticize men such as Paige Patterson, whose position is very similar to my own.  Patterson confessed several years ago, “I am uncomfortable with preceding repentance and faith by regeneration,” but then added, “although I am equally uncomfortable with preceding regeneration by repentance and faith. I see it all as something that happens in a nanosecond…. that can never come to pass as a coincidence of any set of human actions, however you want to define that….  If it happens, it happens…by the vivifying presence and power of the Holy Spirit.”

The Necessity of Real Regeneration
In the comment section on SBC Tomorrow it was noted, “the phrase ‘decisional regeneration’ as it comes from the pen of Jay Adams is defined with a faulty premise.” The pastor of Cornerstone Church in Mesa, Arizona, Dr. James E. Adams is the author of “Decisional Regeneration” (not nouthetic counselor Dr. Jay E. Adams).  Pastor Adams contends “decisional regeneration” views the new birth as the result of a mechanical process performed by an individual.  Adams also contends this practice “must be exposed in order to save men from the damning delusion that because they have decided” or “signed a card,” they are saved.  Adams asks, “Can a man be born again by answering ‘yes’ to a certain group of questions?  Can a man be born from ‘above’ by walking to the front of a building?”  Peter Lumpkins responds, “Dr. Galyon, clearly Adams’ diatribe is an inexcusable, unstudied mockery of every non-Calvinist I know–including myself–pertaining to our view of regeneration. And, he dubs our alleged view ‘decisional regeneration.’” He goes on to state, “What non-Calvinist has not had to tortuously [sic] endure the junior-high theological idiocy of their view trampled as a ‘mechanical process’ which ‘man performs’ in order to ‘save himself? And, of course the rhetorical questions which, once again, possess no resemblance to their view, questions like: ‘Can a man be saved by ‘making a decision’ or ‘signing a card’ or ‘walking an aisle’ or ‘saying a specific prayer’?”

While one may certainly hold to conditional regeneration and not view the new birth as a mere mechanical motion (i.e., Lumpkins), is Adams’ contention regarding the theology (or lack thereof) surrounding many contemporary evangelistic practices unfounded?  I believe his work, perhaps in need of editing and re-wording, is nonetheless a genuine plea to emphasize the supernatural aspect of the new birth (particularly in evangelistic practice). Are there individuals within evangelical congregations who believe the new birth comes about as a result of their decisions, answers, actions, etc.?  Are there pastors and evangelists who believe such?  Are there lost people filling the pews of evangelical congregations, Hell-bound with a false sense of security because they repeated a prayer and wrote a date down in their Bibles?  Considering the fact that Billy Graham famously quipped that the church is one of the greatest mission fields today, perhaps Adams’ contention should be heeded.  Paige Patterson, who is not the biggest fan of Calvinism, to say the least, was interviewed by Mark Dever several years ago.  The interview contained this bit of conversation regarding the topic at hand:

Dever: So on evangelism I am hugely concerned that some of the ways that we’ve done evangelism have actually been some of the things that have most damaged our attempts to spread the gospel. In other words, if I simply share the gospel with somebody, lead them in praying to receive Christ, and then quote 1 John 1:9 to assure them that if they confess their sins that they’re forgiven, and ask them, ‘Have you confessed your sins?’ and they say, ‘Yes, I just did,’ and I respond, ‘Then you’re forgiven. If you doubt that you doubt the word of God.’ I fear that we have filled up our churches with millions and millions of people who genuinely don’t know Jesus from a hole in the wall. They give every evidence of it in their lives, and we preachers and pastors are partly to blame for the way we’ve done the evangelism. I’m not talking about all the preachers who are not obedient in doing evangelism at all. You know, there was the Great Awakening rejoinder that somebody said, ‘I’d rather do my poor evangelism than your no evangelism.’ Well, me too. But, for those who are doing evangelism, it does seem to me like there are a lot of people sitting in our churches who think they are going to heaven. Well, they’re sitting on our rolls but they don’t sit in our churches, and some who sit in our churches don’t really seem to know the Lord.

Patterson: Regrettably I have to believe that anytime you stand up and face a congregation these days in the average church you’re looking at 30-40% that have never been born again and are not genuinely saved.

Dever: You mean in the evangelical church?

Patterson: I’m talking about in Baptist churches where we supposedly emphasize nothing in the world but regeneration. Lord knows what it is in some others, but I think that’s true of us and I think it’s because we have been very careless. We’ve been more concerned about numbers to report to the denominational press than we have been about genuine conversion. So, yes, I’m very concerned about it. Matter of fact, I’ve got to where, going into churches, I preach hardly anything else but the new birth anymore from one of 18-20 passages that I work from, just because I’m so concerned about that. So, yes, I do share your concern about that. It can’t be any other way for us to have as much of the world in the pew as we presently have.

It seems to me that the concerns of Dever (a Calvinist) and Patterson (a non-Calvinist) are in line with those of Adams.  The concern is that individuals be truly born again, actually converted, and not just added to the membership rolls of a congregation because they utter a prayer or walk an aisle.  These are valid concerns with eternal consequences.

In my post regarding “Whitefield and the New Birth”, I concluded:

“What may modern evangelicals learn from Whitefield?  First, that it is the power of the Holy Spirit using His Word – not gimmicks, giveaways, or the uttering of simplistic formulas (e.g, Accept / Believe / Confess) – which God uses to bring about the new birth (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5).  Second, that the new birth is of divine origin.  Human beings have neither the power nor the ability to raise themselves from spiritual death to attain spiritual life (John 3:3-8).  Third, that conversion – the reality of experiencing the new birth – means life-transformation.  Those who profess Christ but live like the devil have no part of the Kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).”

This is nothing with which biblical non-Calvinists should contend.  Wesley himself, not to mention Paige Patterson, expressed views keeping in line with these three points.  This is not a Reformed issue of defending Calvinistic dogma.  It is an evangelical issue of defending the reality of the life-changing, life-giving gospel of Jesus Christ.

Advertisement